I’d released this Jungle / Drum & Bass track a while ago under a different name but decided to re-visit it again since it’s so very timely.

The name would be a clever tongue-in-cheek reworking of TCL (a.k.a. Toronto City Life), if I believed in tongues, cheeks, and cleverness. 

To answer what I’m sure must be the most nagging question you have at the moment: yes, I’m available to play bar mitzvahs, weddings, and small get-togethers. I also produce.

Precious few cabbages, if we’re being honest.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board has broached a horrific new viewpoint: that entrenched, tyrannical, absolute, unaccountable state power is the answer to Donald Trump’s “runaway train” presidency. It’s a great solution, they say, and it’ll do wonders for Canada!

Being the norm for modern mass media, this is not called totalitarianism, state tyranny, fascism, communism, etc. but instead euphemistically named the “deep state”. This is merely a renaming of a frightening and ghoulish ideology in order to make it more palatable.

Consider what something like fascism actually entails:

• … dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce

There are variations surrounding this definition but this is a good midpoint for comparison.

Of course, this could easily describe communism and socialism too and that is perhaps one of the fundamental reasons why Germany’s flavour of “right-wing” ideology was called National Socialism.

All of these collectivist ideals, from communism/socialism to fascism to monarchism to so-called “moderate” examples like democracies, are all fundamentally the same: absolute, total, unquestionable government control of everything.

Some forms of government are more overt about these aspirations than others but they are, and must necessarily be, all undeniably alike.

After all, if a government doesn’t wield coercive (i.e. violent/threatening) control over it’s citizens, how can it rule … by leading through example? Through the presentation of popular voluntary ideas? Don’t be silly! people must be forced into abiding by the will of the omniscient bureaucrats and demiurgic politicians. That’s why the world’s problems are almost all solved!

Of course, the past is littered with examples of how wonderful this type of thinking is.

The Star is essentially trying to warm people to the institution of yet another round of mass horror, destruction, and suffering and they believe that you’re daft enough not to notice any parallels between what they’re pushing and what history has demonstrated time and again.

Since they won’t do so, let us compare.

Fascism’s “dictatorial power”, or rule by one entrenched person or entity (especially un-elected), is described lovingly by The Star as:

…elements of Washington’s established power class…Career officials…the bureaucracies that carry on the day-to-day business of governing, operating with long-established norms of behaviour…

These groups are described in heroic terms as the “non-partisan civil service, whose mission is to serve whichever government is in office”, but are then praised for not supporting whoever’s in power in order to maintain “well-established ways of doing things.”

In other words, the virtue of un-elected and entrenched interests is that they serve whoever’s in power while refusing to serve whoever’s in power when “well-established ways of doing things” are threatened.

To put it more briefly, they serve whoever’s in power unless it goes against what they do.

Makes perfect sense! Much logic! Wow!

The “forcible suppression of opposition” part of a fascist/communist/socialist/democratic system is touched on peripherally in the above paragraph, though The Star never explicitly states this. They do repeatedly mention the FBI though which, as everyone knows, does their job through gentle persuasion and kind words in order to protect the establishment.

No…wait…they use guns, violence and threats.

My mistake!

So, yeah, “forcible suppression of opposition” to the established order that The Star droolingly idolizes.

Regarding “control of industry and commerce”, that pretty much describes government to a “T”. Between the Federal Reserve’s fiddling with interest rates, to the numerous licensing and legislative hoops that any business owner must jump through, to taxation and government fees, to the numerous ways that governments grant monopolies — it’s actually much easier and shorter to ask how government doesn’t control industry and commerce.

The topic of overt government control of the economy is quite extensive. Here in Canada it’s estimated that the government has direct control over roughly 60% of the economy and there are many indirect ways that are not immediately obvious. This isn’t a major departure from classical fascist economic models or those of communists/socialists, as I’ve maintained since the beginning.

The Star paints the opposition to Trump as a dichotomy between “left” and “right” political viewpoints but these are ultimately nothing more than minuscule iterations within a myopic, totalitarian, government-above-all mindset. The opposite of absolute state authority isn’t more absolute state authority, and giving it a different name doesn’t make it so. The solution to the problems of government isn’t more government.

Only the dangerously blind, naive, or stupid would propose that the powers of un-elected officials (not that elected ones are necessarily better), or unchecked authority of Übermensch bureaucrats are the way to establish freedom, justice, and a modicum of equality. It requires an abject refusal to examine the reality of history to make the claim that this time, totalitarian government will definitely work!

This is the ominous age that humanity has once again entered, one in which national publications like the Toronto Star openly espouse the wisdom and benevolence of the state, a violent, bureaucratic, coercive, unaccountable entity which has almost without exception always lead to some of the most horrific chapters in human history.

If it all amounts to a “deep state,” then we won’t apologize for that.

P.S. There are some points in this post that may seem contentious, such as the lumping together of fascism, communism/socialism, and democratic government. To the casual observer who has spent up to 12 of their most formative years in government indoctrination (public schools), this may seem like nonsense, but upon closer examination it becomes exceedingly clear that various forms of governments are, by far and large, mostly the same thing. That some happen to result in more mass abuses of human rights than others is partially luck and partially illusion, an inability to see what is clearly and starkly in front of one’s face every day. These are, however, topics for another day.

P.P.S. The Star Editorial Board must not even read their own editorials!

Looks like I’m being forced out of retirement!

Well, okay, not really retirement per se, just the excessively long pauses between posts on TCL due to my deep nasal entombment in the CypherPoker project. (BTW, I recommend that you check it out — it’s gotten almost universally positive and enthusiastic feedback and I think it’ll be a literal game changer, despite the cliché)

However, Heather Mallick’s op-ed piece in the Toronto Star earlier this week about why she loves taxes (and so should you), really got me riled up. This is not her first op-ed extolling the virtues of going down on the taxman within the last year, no even her second.

The collection of Mallick’s statist* bullshit, hypocrisy, and blathering gibberish is liberally smeared with idiotic catchphrases, insidious moral relativism, and a litany of self-contradictions. I’m going to break it down piece by piece to demonstrate not only how deeply deluded Mallick is on the topic of taxes but also to expose the hypocrisy and immorality of her brand of vile authoritarianism-by-proxy.

First, let’s get something straight: taxation is theft

This is really quite simple. If someone takes something of yours without your consent it’s theft. I didn’t consent to have taxes seized from every paycheque and from everything I buy, and neither did a great many people in this country. The fact that government seizes this money using threats makes it extortion, and it’s practiced even on children. Give your kid a buck to go buy a $0.99 snack and then explain why it’s not enough.

In fact, explain to them why it’s so wrong to mislead customers on advertised prices and then why it’s perfectly fine for government to demand exactly this along with threats against store owners who would dare to include taxes on advertised prices. Explain to your kids why customers absolutely and under any circumstance shouldn’t be allowed to know exactly what they’ll be paying at the cash register because a bureaucrat said so.

Continuing on, statist “logic” dictates that if I don’t check that voting box it means that I haven’t granted the rights to government that it universally claims. Right? Isn’t that how government is granted rights — because we grant them those rights by voting?

So can I exercise the right to tax others if I don’t vote, or did I never have that right which I ostensibly granted the government through elections? And if I never had that right to begin with, how exactly did I grant it to government by voting? And how is this all considered a legally binding contract for an entire nation of people when the very same courts who so brazenly defend it would laugh at it if you or I attempted it?

Probably because we don’t have sufficient weapons, threats, and violence to back our “authority”. Possibly because we don’t own the court house, pay the judges and opposition lawyers, write the laws, and seize money from our challengers to use against them in the “fair and unbiased” court system.

Taxes are simply immoral and wrong and are considered criminal if anyone but government collected them. So why is this magical entity called government excluded from morality and justice?

I can hear the retorts now:

But aren’t taxes necessary to build and maintain infrastructure? Aren’t people who are against taxes just being greedy and selfish? Wouldn’t society simply crumble if we didn’t pay up?

Nope, nope, and nope. Utter and absolute hogwash.

I won’t get into a broad dissertation on the topic since Mallick’s own, near-sighted writing will do just fine so let’s peel open this rotten onion and get at the full, eye-watering stench of these arguments.

She bolts out of the gate with this stinker:

What Revenue Canada wants, Revenue Canada gets. Good for them.

Mallick displays a zealously servile ignorance of the fact that 100 years ago the government imposed a 4% income tax on Canadians which was apparently not only enough to carry the entire bureaucracy but enough to fund the war effort. And wars are expensive. Even 50 years ago the average income tax rate was around 14% to 16%, something I personally gleaned by looking through historical records.

Now the state is seizing more than 50% of Canadians’ money and is barely able to fix the pothole in front of your house let alone provide any decent — and necessary — services like mass transportation. Despite pouring ridiculous sums of money into transit there’s little to show for it, yet government somehow manages to find the money for things like Kafkaesque mass surveillance programs that instill fear and obedience into Canadians.

Good for them.

Only unaccountable monopolies with the ability to seize ever more money in order to continue operating could possibly exist when repeated failure is piled on failure. If it had to compete in the real world, government would have shriveled up and died long ago; it is inefficient, bloated, and full of promises it can’t keep.

At this rate, in another hundred years the state will be seizing 100% of everyone’s income while neo-Mallick propagandists will proclaim how wonderful and efficient government is and how it’s keeping us all safe.

Mallick goes on to provide an example of “a service Torontonians never dreamed was needed but now are cheering.”

At 4 on Wednesday morning, a young woman was seen downtown clinging to a block hanging by wires from a tall crane. It was not clear if she was suicidal, drugged, a rooftopper, or a crime victim. But 12 storeys up, one slip of her arm would have had her broken, bloody and pasted to the ground.

Firefighters and police arrived. Rob Wonfor, a cheerful 52-year-old firefighter who describes himself as “a bit of a monkey,” climbed the crane, along with a police negotiator who talks people down — Wonfor said the negotiator was so calming he sounded like Perry Como, who basically slept through his songs — and reached the woman.

She wrapped herself around him and he held her to him like a baby in a carrier. It was found to be unsafe to lower the block so they both rappelled down.

As it turns out, the woman had been a fierce climber since childhood and rooftopped for the joy of it. “You overlook the city. It’s really amazing, like a deep breath of euphoria,” as one rooftopping photographer has described it to the Star.

Here Mallick describes how we need the pricey services provided exclusively by the city while at the same time describing how people such as “crane girl” Marisa Lazo happily do this sort of thing for free and would most likely volunteer to help out in similar situations in exchange for a few selfies.

Your intellectual prowess is truly dizzying, Mallick … do go on!

But charming as the story is, the real story is that in Toronto, if someone’s at risk, the city can immediately deploy trained teams to make them safe and take them to hospital for free health care. That is one well-designed system.

I supposed that in government speak, waiting 2 to 3 hours for assistance is considered “immediate”. I, however, call it a sad fucking joke that imperils lives. And that “free” part is a little bit of mental fromage I’ve heard from many a rabid statist. Apparently in Mallick’s world the hospital runs on rainbows and unicorn farts — doctors get paid nothing, electricity simply appears, equipment is all generously donated, cleaning staff do it for the kicks, and the buildings rise up out of the ground by themselves.

Oh…wait…you mean all these things do need to be paid for? Through taxes? Taken from you and processed by a bloated and wasteful bureaucracy before getting to the intended target? Ah, so actually not free at all?

And people are being forced to pay for the privilege of being sidelined in all sorts of horrific ways when needing often vital medical care. Mallick herself complains that abortion pills are out of reach of most women because of government, takes umbrage with government for not dealing with “foul” doctors, and berates government for allowing for-profit blood donation centers.

What the fuck, Mallick? Don’t you even read your own pieces?

Apparently not because she regularly complains about things like how governments failed to address wholesale banking fraud, how government fails in providing basic education because “chump” parents don’t want to pay more taxes and instead want choices for their children’s schooling, how government privatization is destroying the Canadian economy — but thankfully the systemic caging of humans which, when locked up become “homemade revenue-generators”, is still government-owned — and how governments terrorize and divide citizens using the migrant crisis while conveniently neglecting to mention that these same governments rank among some of the top taxers in the world.

I’d bookmarked a bunch of Mallick’s other op-eds to show how profoundly self-contradictory she is but that’d be beating a dead horse.

The important point here is that Mallick has viewpoints on what she thinks is important and what she wants to see happen, as we all do, but she steadfastly believes in using the violent monopoly of the state to impose her views on everyone else. That’s authoritarianism veiled in a thin lie of humanitarianism.

Because she’s greedy and selfish she believes everyone else is too and so the only solution is to threaten and beat people into submission. But she doesn’t want to do the dirty work and wants the state to do it for her.

She simply can’t imagine people working together to solve profound problems or that people would help their neighbours when they’re in need and instead projects her vitriolic “me me me!” attitude onto the world around her. I doubt she’s ever experienced poverty or deprivation.

She bizarrely believes that funneling money through a middleman, even if done voluntarily, is somehow cheaper or more efficient than procuring products and services directly on a free and competitive market.

Mallick thinks that — despite the fact that the government grants monopoly powers to select healthcare providers and even goes so far as to penalize people for not buying healthcare from their rich buddies — this is somehow a free, open, and competitive market in which …

… being injured means medical bankruptcy

Here she again conveniently ignores the fact that most state tax levels are comparable to Canada’s while looking the other way on all of the unfortunate accompanying facts.

She claims that …

Canadians can have everything they want, as long as they’re willing to pay for it.

In reality it’s “Canadians will take what they’re given and they’ll pay what they’re told to pay for it.”

This is why Mallick complains that …

My Main St. bus route in Toronto is a road of rubble. Canada is short of judges. Victoria still pumps raw sewage into the ocean. We need more English classes for refugees, more hospital beds, more help for indigenous people.

If government is doing such a good job why do these problems continue to fester and grow with each year? Clearly, according to Mallick, the people who haven’t been able to solve these problems just need more money!

In Canada, tax is the price we pay for civilization.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this bullshit I’d have less than half of the total … because taxes. No, Heather Mallick, Tax is the price civilization pays to be repressed.

If we could just move past the myopic, authoritarian ramblings of fools like Mallick, humanity would expand to the stars in the blink of an eye. I’d be more than willing to voluntarily contribute to that!

* A statist is a supporter of the state, a.k.a. government & friends

The Old Hsin Kuang Restaurant

https://goo.gl/maps/g9BDkr5xdrx

Early this morning I received an email notifying me that our GoFundMe campaign has been removed due to a violation of the “Not Allowed on GoFundMe” section of their Terms & Conditions.

Although no such section exists I assume that they were referring to this part:

…you agree to not use the Services to:

establish or contribute to any Campaign with the implicit or express purpose relating to any of the following: …

6. gambling, gaming and/or any other activity with an entry fee and a prize, including, but not limited to casino games, sports betting, fantasy sports, horse or greyhound racing, lottery tickets, other ventures that facilitate gambling, games of skill or chance (whether or not it is legally defined as a lottery) or sweepstakes;

This had given us pause when we were signing up for GoFundMe but we didn’t think that asking for support to help us while I write free and open-source game software would be a problem.

Besides, whether it’s facilitating gambling or funding gambling trips, actually asking for money to gamble with, funding poker games, funding poker buy-ins, funding a casino, and funding online gambling software, there are numerous examples on GoFundMe where the “strictly enforced policies” that their email mentions don’t seem to apply. Moreover there’s the fact that a number of these campaigns have been categorized meaning that they’ve actually been reviewed by GoFundMe.

Either GoFundMe’s policies are very selective or they’re sloppily applied. The fact that GoFundMe tends to shy away from controversial campaigns suggests that it’s probably the former.

Of course GoFundMe is free to censor their own services and roughly $50 of the $55 raised so far (thank you!) has been collected so I don’t feel cheated but it sure would be nice if they were consistent. It would’ve also been nice if they had simply halted the campaign instead of just deleting it outright; if we didn’t already have the donors’ contact information we would’ve lost it without warning.

Sarah and I are now looking at alternatives but in the meantime it seems kind of silly not to provide a Bitcoin address for donations:

1N5nkMSWf1vTkbekst4PvsGq3Q5eK38ga5

Thank you again for your continued support and for helping to spread the word!

Over a year and a half ago I brought up some of the issues that we were experiencing with our apartment. In case you don’t remember, the 2 elevators had slowly been deteriorating and eventually stopped working altogether. No matter how many times we approached management about the issues, no matter how many times the TSSA issued “stop operations” orders, nothing but sloppy band-aid solutions were applied. It was only until the tenants got utterly fed up and collectively took the company to court that something got done. But the elevators were just one of the problems, the rest of which persist.

The management of the Startlight Investments property at the time was Greenwin Inc. which was subsequently switched to Sterling Karamar. At least that was the placation; the fact that almost none of the contact information had changed suggested that, indeed, little had changed. In fact, comparing the customer portals of Greenwin and Sterling Karamar shows a remarkable similarity.

This might be easy to dismiss until one looks at the corporate leadership of Sterling Karamar and Property Vista, the mutual customer portal shared with Greenwin. Property Vista’s CEO is Leonard Drimmer, formerly CEO of property management firm Transglobe, a company founded by Daniel Drimmer (no relation, I’m sure), CEO of Starlight. Okay, so Sterling Karamar and Property Vista are connected but where does Greenwin come into it? Well, our building manager has been kind enough to put the pieces together on his LinkedIn profile:

How about that? Looks like Mr. Vorajee worked for Greenwin (the company “managing” 200 Wellesley during their massive fire), right before suddenly switching over to Sterling Karamar – right around the same time as Starlight made the switch from Greenwin to Sterling Karamar at our place. Mere coincidence, I’m sure.

I’m sure it’s equally coincidental that Capreit, where Asad was a “leasing specialist”, was acquired by Starlight. Yeah, sure. I’m equally dubious of Timbercreek’s proximity to Starlight but maybe I’m wrong there. Regardless, when the tenants described Starlight’s lack of action as a “shell game” during our court action, they were right. When Asad explained that he had no knowledge of our property’s problems before he took over, I was right to be skeptical. Besides, how does one become a property manager without knowing anything about the problems with the property that they’re managing?

Just to give you a taste of the services that these people expect us to put up with, we’re now into the 10th day without hot water; we’d probably still be waiting for them to just have a look if I didn’t let loose on them over the phone two Saturdays ago. Of course, Asad claimed that no one had complained and he had no idea! Sure.

Then there’s the problems with the stairwells — see how many you can spot:

Although the graffiti’s a nice touch, the real problems are the banisters, slippery-paint stairs on all but 2 floors, and a complete lack of emergency lighting. When the elevators went out this was our only way up 18 flights of stairs. With a wheelchair it sucked. During the rain and snow it sucked more. When the power went out it sucked even more.

The superintended shrugs and walks away whenever these issues are brought up, and despite the continuous torrent of complaints he receives (according to him), he seems quite satisfied to keep his mouth shut and continue in his role. Perhaps it has something to do with the newly acquired BMW he’s been proudly buffing in the parking lot; quite a prize for a lowly super!

Then when we bring up these problems to management, their lackadaisical “fixes” (when they actually bother), leave a lot to be desired:

Every level of the company claims ignorance of any of these issues. Instead of addressing them they insist that we use their portal to report them, after which they’re promptly ignored. For example, I currently have 16 open maintenance issues which have been sitting idle without any follow up for a week now (they kindly ask for up to 2 business days to set up an inspection). Some of the open issues include a busted bathtub faucet:

…water-damaged ceilings:

…no doubt as a result of the newly renovated roof which appears to be about as watertight as the newly renovated windows:

…or the walls on which, contrary to the superintendent’s advice, sticking a piece of tape doesn’t fix the drafts:

Equally ineffective was their “solution” to a lack of hot water in our kitchen sink. For this they broke through the wall into the adjoining unit and connected our hot water to theirs. When the building actually has hot water the water pressure understandably sucks, but on the bright side our cats can squeeze through the hole and make unexpected visits to our neighbour, as can odours and drafts:

Based on this I think it’s doubtful that the rotting caulking, peeling paint, or crumbling balcony would be a high priority for them:

I haven’t even touched on the grossness in the basement laundry room, complete lack of security, and other problems throughout the building, but I’m sure you can imagine them at this point.

However, it would be unfair for me to claim that management aren’t at least aware of our presence in this building. Yeah, problems don’t get fixed, but they’re quick to let us know how concerned they are:

Third increasing in three years. Heart-warming.

But wait, there’s more:

Funny, I recall choosing this place specifically because they didn’t require insurance, but the year-long lease that they refer to has long since expired anyways. Still, their honesty about how this is to help lower their insurance costs is refreshing and understandable; they don’t want us suing them for the inevitable destruction of our property as a result of their shoddy service and workmanship.

I’d be willing to be fair and say that we receive other communication from them but, aside from the occasional pamphlet asking us to log into Sterling Karamar’s portal, or flyer asking us to sucker someone else into renting in one of their buildings (for a $300 reward), the only news we currently have is in the landing to let us know that the hot water might be back on by the end of this week. Maybe. Oh, and the roof above the parking area may be “renovated”. Maybe. Next year.

We’re not exactly what you’d call loud or obnoxious neighbours (we’ve had one “party” since we’ve moved in, and that involved a few quiet drinks with a friend), and as you can tell we hold back on our complaints. All of the damages I’ve shown here were either present since we moved in about three years ago, or have developed as a result of daily wear and tear. I like to think that I’m reasonable both in terms of how long I expect things to last as well as how long it should take to fix them (or at least follow up). However, I’ve now had just about enough.

If you’re looking to rent in Toronto and you see properties either owned or managed by any of the companies I’ve rolled off, I would highly recommend that you avoid them.

“High-end rentals” indeed!

A few weeks ago when the HR lady called me and told me that I too was now among a number of people who had been laid off as a result of “business decisions”, I could scarcely contain my enthusiasm. “That’s great!”, I replied giddily. There was a moment of silence before I caught myself. “I mean, that sucks … terrible .. but it’s great that I know about it sooner rather than later”, I sputtered. Good save.

I clumsily explained that, having spoken to colleagues and being aware of the changes, I could now live without the uncertainty, then swung the conversation back around to me getting fired.

“Yeah, no, that’s bad news,” I assured her but added that the severance would be helpful.

I was lying – I was elated.

Thing is, I’d been working on a project in my spare time that it was probably best to keep hush-hush. So it was. The main complication was the fact that the project is an online poker game and I was – until recently – working for a company that had bought PokerStars. It wasn’t that I was “borrowing” code or secrets or clients or anything like that, and I genuinely liked working for them, it’s just that the whole situation felt complicated.

Besides I just thought that the idea was too damn good to risk any potential roadblocks, especially early on. So I assumed an alias and toned down my writing style.

I was asked why I included a cryptographic identity when I first announced the project on Reddit, and this is why. I was probably being a little too paranoid but so far everyone I’ve discussed it with thinks it’s a pretty darned good idea. I’ve even seen it suggested that if such a thing could be built it would be “super revolutionary“, “so obviously disruptive“, “a killer app“, and other encouraging adjectives, so protecting the work by keeping my identity hidden seemed wise.

I hope you can see how one might foresake blogging for a bit in order to concentrate on such a project, but I did at least hint at it when I was starting to see some solid first results. I wasn’t just talking out of my ass there.

So since we’re at the part of the story where I’m unveiled as the guy behind the project I might as well call it by its real name: CypherPoker.

Okay, so it’s an online poker game, right? So what?

Well, for starters, it really is quite unique, disruptive, and revolutionary – it’s almost entirely bass-ackwards to the way that online poker currently works.

I’m sure that I’m not giving anything away when I say that most online gaming sites operate under a “client-server” model. This means that they own and operate computers with big internet connections that “serve” game information to the players’  computers or “clients”. In effect, games take place almost entirely on the operators’ computers; clients are used mostly to display the results of the games in a nice way.

This makes sense. You can see how it’d be problematic if the clients (players/peers) were to decide how cards should be dealt – someone would just need to hack the software to enable all sorts of cheating. In the client-server approach hackers would have to get at the servers which is much more difficult (but not impossible).

Players must also trust that operators are being fair and honest, and when they are, that they are able to properly monitor their systems for cheating. This has not always been the case.

With CypherPoker this approach is turned almost entirely on its head and in a way that seems paradoxical. For example, players play directly with each other (a.k.a. peer-to-peer) – no servers are needed.

But didn’t I just finish talking about how problematic it’d be if players were allowed to “deal” each other cards over the internet?

Yeah. In fact, the problem was described much more succinctly in a somewhat obscure MIT paper entitled “Mental Poker“:

Can two potentially dishonest players play a fair game of poker without using any cards … over the phone?

Even though this question seems like a real mind fuck, there’s actually a viable solution to the problem and the authors go on to show you how it’s done.

Because the answer uses math (cryptography), and since we’re no longer living in the Dark Ages, substituting “phone” with “networked computing device” is a simple but necessary step; I ain’t doing the calculations on paper!

Back when “Mental Poker” was still a fresh and new idea, computers just weren’t capable of handling the kinds of computations needed to play a decent game. I remember reading that a card “shuffle” operation in an early Mental Poker implementation required hours of calculation. Can you imagine how long a single game would last? Yikes! Well, it’s 2015 and modern hardware is finally capable of crunching the numbers in a reasonable amount of time.

Paradoxically, visualizing how the game works requires no math skills whatsoever.

First we need to get our hands on 52 identical, peek-proof lock boxes with a miraculous ability to repel any markings (scratches, dents, paints, decals, etc.) In addition we’ll need 52 identical locks with the same miraculous abilities and one master key to open them all. My opponent, you, also has 52 miracle locks and a key to go with them.

Now I start by distributing the cards in my card deck into the boxes – one per – and lock them all. I mix up the boxes for good measure and call Larry’s Super Courier service to deliver them to you. You soon get the boxes and apply your own locks so that now all of the boxes are double-locked. With the way that each box is secured, either lock can come off first. Even though this is easy to achieve using physical lock boxes (just use a big latch), it’s a very important property – we need to be able to add or remove locks in any order for this process to work.

After being mixed up again the 52 double-locked boxes are returned to me.

Since we’re playing Texas Hold’em, I need to select two private (hole) cards for myself so I simply pick two boxes and send them to you. You remove your locks from them so that only my locks remain. When the boxes are returned to me I remove my locks and extract my cards – simple. Notice that even though I locked all the boxes first, I had to unlock these two boxes last – after you removed your locks. Without the ability to add or remove locks in any order this all wouldn’t work.

Of course you need to repeat this process in order to “unlock” other cards, and there are other types of exchanges that are required for a full card game, but that’s the gist of it.

If we use numbers to represent physical cards – 1=Ace of Spades, 2=Two of Spades, etc. – we can use cryptography to “lock” and “unlock” them. As long as the cryptography is “commutative”, or can be applied and removed in any order, we can effectively play a fair game of poker over a telephone. Or maybe over the internet with a computer to do the calculations and display the results.

The “Mental Poker” idea is plenty cool all by itself but if you throw the serendipitous rise of Bitcoin into the mix, the whole thing starts to take on new dimensions. When you add anonymity via something like Tor or I2P to the game and the associated services (for example, introducing random internet players to each other), the possibilities absolutely blossom.

CypherPoker is well beyond the idea stage; the game exists and is available to play today. I spent the time writing versatile and solid code so the game is functional but the user interface sucks. However, now that I can drop the alias I can also drop the hammer so we’ll see about getting that and other shortcomings rectified forthwith.

In addition, I’m going to spend more quality time with TCL and my other blog again, partially to prevent any future fears regarding my freedom and well-being, partially to put my new camera to good use (other one disappeared a while back), but also to document and discuss the project’s progress more closely and regularly now that I don’t have to censor my output. I haven’t found any “Mental Poker” implementations that are as far along as mine so it’s hard to say exactly what lies ahead but that tingly feeling in my gut tells me that it’s probably going to be awesome.

There’s just not much money in it:

Scott and Maggie Cassella discussing equal opportunity sex toys: